In the matter of Kinglet Finlease and Sec.Ltd
Case brief
What is this about?
The Securities Appellate Tribunal dismissed Kinglet Finlease's appeal against SEBI's suspension of its registration for one year. The Tribunal affirmed that NSE's action and SEBI's suspension address distinct offences and upheld the validity regarding the statute of limitations.
What did the court decide?
Appeal dismissed; SEBI's order suspending the Appellant's registration for one year is upheld.
What the court decided
BEFORE THE SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI
Appeal No.88/2002
In the matter of: Kinglet Finlease & Securities Ltd., Appellant Vs. Securities and Exchange Board of India Respondent Appearance: Shri K. S. Jhaveri, Advocate For Appellant Shri Ananta Barua, Jt. Legal Adviser, SEBI Shri Joby Mathew Legal Officer, SEBI For Respondent
ORDER
The present appeal is directed against the Respondent’s order dated 22.8.2002. By the said order, the registration certificate granted to the Appellant to act as a stockbroker on the National Stock Exchange of India Ltd., was suspended for a period of one year with effect from 6.9.2002.
The background in which the impugned order was issued has been detailed in the order itself. The factual position has not been disputed in the appeal. The factual position stated in the order is considered relevant for the purpose of deciding the appeal. The text of the order extracted below provides the factual position and the reasons for the order:
“1. Investigations were conducted by SEBI into the alleged market manipulations in the scrip of Kamal Overseas Ltd., (KOL). Investigations brought out that the shares of Kamal Overseas Ltd., were listed for trading on NSE w.e.f. 9th October 1996., The trading activity in the scrip was very thin and sporadic, so much so that, only 1200 shares of the company were traded between 9th October 1996 and 15th April 1997. Trades took place only on 6 days during this period and the share price moved in a narrow range of Rs.75 to Rs.81. It was observed that suddenly from 22nd April, 1997 onwards (which was the last day of St.No.16/1997), trading activity picked up in the scrip and a volume of 10,200 shares were recorded and the price of the scrip moved upto Rs.82/-. The next two settlements viz. No.17/1998 (23-29 April 1997) and No.18/1997 (30th April – 6th May 1997) saw feverish trading activity in the scrip with a trading volume of 7,53,600 shares and 11,97,100 shares respectively.
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether SEBI can impose penalty for violation of Broker Regulations and FUTP Regulations after NSE deactivated terminal and imposed domestic penalty.
Whether the Appellant was subjected to discriminatory treatment compared to Anagram Securities in similar circumstances.
Whether the order passed by SEBI was time barred under regulation 29(3) of the Broker Regulations.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Kinglet Finlease & Securities Ltd.
- respondent
Securities and Exchange Board of India
Coram
C. Achutan
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court